php-general Digest 13 Feb 2012 18:52:05 -0000 Issue 7687
Topics (messages 316579 through 316586):
Re: questions about $_SERVER
316579 by: Michael Save
316584 by: Stuart Dallas
Re: Swiftlet is quite possibly the smallest MVC framework you'll ever use.
316580 by: Elbert F
316581 by: Benjamin Hawkes-Lewis
316582 by: Simon Schick
316583 by: Simon Schick
316585 by: Paul M Foster
What is the mnemonic for date()'s Day format?
316586 by: Dotan Cohen
Administrivia:
To subscribe to the digest, e-mail:
php-general-digest-subscr...@lists.php.net
To unsubscribe from the digest, e-mail:
php-general-digest-unsubscr...@lists.php.net
To post to the list, e-mail:
php-gene...@lists.php.net
----------------------------------------------------------------------
--- Begin Message ---
On Mon, Feb 13, 2012 at 5:28 PM, Rui Hu <tchrb...@gmail.com> wrote:
> hi,
>
> How PHP sets variables in $_SERVER, say, $DOCUMENT_ROOT? What should I know
> if I want to modify $_SERVER myself?
>
> Thanks!
>
>
> --
> Best regards,
>
> Rui Hu
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> State Key Laboratory of Networking & Switching Technology
> Beijing University of Posts and Telecommunications(BUPT)
> MSN: tchrb...@gmail.com
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rui,
$_SERVER is an associative array. You can access "DOCUMENT_ROOT" with
$_SERVER['DOCUMENT_ROOT']. It contains the document root directory
under which the current script is executing.
You can make changes to the $_SERVER array but it will have no effect
on PHP itself. I mean, you can change the value of
$_SERVER['DOCUMENT_ROOT'] to whatever you want at runtime, but of
course it will not actually change the current directory if that's
what you're after.
Thanks,
Michael
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
On 13 Feb 2012, at 06:28, Rui Hu wrote:
> How PHP sets variables in $_SERVER, say, $DOCUMENT_ROOT? What should I know
> if I want to modify $_SERVER myself?
Once your script starts the superglobals are no different to any other
variables, except that they're in scope at all times.
The only thing you need to bear in mind if you're going to modify them is that
other code that's using them will also see your changes, so beware of knock-on
effects.
-Stuart
--
Stuart Dallas
3ft9 Ltd
http://3ft9.com/
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Hi Paul,
Swiftlet implements PSR-0, an unofficial standard that many of the
larger frameworks seem to be adopting. It simply maps namespaces to a
path, e.g. Foo\Bar\Baz translates to Foo/Bar/Baz.php. The advantage is
that you should be able to drop in third-party libraries which are
included by the same autoloader and without naming conflicts.
https://github.com/php-fig/fig-standards/blob/master/accepted/PSR-0.md
Elbert
> > Hi Simon,
> >
> > I think you're right that I may be abusing the constructor a bit. I'm going
> > to follow your suggestion and split it up into smaller functions. I'm also
> > thinking of moving the set_error_handler and spl_autoload_register
> > functions to index.php where Swiftlet is bootstrapped so they can be
> > changed.
>
> I didn't look thoroughly at your code (though, if the respondent's
> perceptions were correct, I'd have to agree with his prescriptions for
> improvement). But I wanted to make a comment about autoloaders, since
> you mentioned it.
>
> My philosophy, since autoloading was introduced, was that it was a cool
> way to avoid having a lot of complicated file inclusion calls all over
> the place. Just tell the autoloader function where different types of
> files were located, and then just instantiate classes as you like. Easy.
>
> But I recently did some work for one of these companies with a million
> file internally developed framework. And at the top of each file, they'd
> include a require_once() (or similar) call for each of the files which
> would be called if you needed to instantiate a class from any of those
> files. So rather than putting all the magic in an autoloader function,
> they'd simply include the file where they knew it would be needed.
> (E.g., you know you're going to be calling your Date class in this file,
> so you put a require_once() call to the file that contains it at the top
> of this file.)
>
> The more I've thought about it since then, the more I've considered it a
> Good Thing(tm). It makes troubleshooting existing code a whole lot
> easier. I don't have to wonder what the autoloader is doing or where the
> files are, on which the current file depends. It sort of obviates the
> autoloader stuff, but I'd rather do that than spend hours trying to
> track down which file in which directory contains the class which paints
> the screen blue or whatever. (Yes, I'm aware that require_once()
> introduces some latency.)
>
> Just something to consider.
>
> Paul
>
> --
> Paul M. Foster
> http://noferblatz.com
> http://quillandmouse.com
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
On Sun, Feb 12, 2012 at 11:36 PM, Paul M Foster <pa...@quillandmouse.com> wrote:
> The more I've thought about it since then, the more I've considered it a
> Good Thing(tm). It makes troubleshooting existing code a whole lot
> easier. I don't have to wonder what the autoloader is doing or where the
> files are, on which the current file depends. It sort of obviates the
> autoloader stuff, but I'd rather do that than spend hours trying to
> track down which file in which directory contains the class which paints
> the screen blue or whatever.
Yeah, this is the sort of problem better handled by a tool than
switching away from autoloaders.
Exuberant Ctags is your friend.
--
Benjamin Hawkes-Lewis
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Hi, Paul
I personally pretty much like the idea of auto-loaders, but that's a
personal point of view.
If you have always develop with scripts having autoloaders you'll hate to
write a *require_once* command at the beginning of all files. And what
would a dependency-injection-container be without an autoloader ;)
http://www.slideshare.net/fabpot/dependency-injection-with-php-53
If you write your code in OOP you should always have unique class-names. If
you follow this and use a good naming-convention both ways should be
usable. I prefer to use autoloaders, you maybe not and that makes code so
personalized ;) *like-it*
Bye
Simon
2012/2/13 Benjamin Hawkes-Lewis <bhawkesle...@googlemail.com>
> On Sun, Feb 12, 2012 at 11:36 PM, Paul M Foster <pa...@quillandmouse.com>
> wrote:
> > The more I've thought about it since then, the more I've considered it a
> > Good Thing(tm). It makes troubleshooting existing code a whole lot
> > easier. I don't have to wonder what the autoloader is doing or where the
> > files are, on which the current file depends. It sort of obviates the
> > autoloader stuff, but I'd rather do that than spend hours trying to
> > track down which file in which directory contains the class which paints
> > the screen blue or whatever.
>
> Yeah, this is the sort of problem better handled by a tool than
> switching away from autoloaders.
>
> Exuberant Ctags is your friend.
>
> --
> Benjamin Hawkes-Lewis
>
> --
> PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/)
> To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
>
>
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Hi, Elbert
I personally would remove the set_error_handler completely. This is a
configuration that the administrator has to handle himself. In a
development-env they want to see all errors, warnings etc, yes - even a
strict_notice. But in a production-env they dont want to show anything to
the user - just show a general error if something really heavy happened.
You can put that in the index.php but I'd wrap it in comments or remove it.
In my opinion it's a good idea to move the autoloader into the index.php.
Then you can even call your app class using the autoloader ;)
I'm just curious what exactly you want to try with the plugins ... Should
they simply be extensions or also possibilities to extend other plugins? I
also wrote my own framework 3 years ago and was more about making things
way more complex than they could be just to think about maximum flexibility
..
I pretty much also like the no-config part.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convention_over_configuration
Bye
Simon
2012/2/12 Elbert F <i...@elbertf.com>
> Hi Simon,
>
> I think you're right that I may be abusing the constructor a bit. I'm
> going to follow your suggestion and split it up into smaller functions. I'm
> also thinking of moving the set_error_handler and spl_autoload_register
> functions to index.php where Swiftlet is bootstrapped so they can be
> changed.
>
> You make another good point about the model; it's never supposed to access
> the controller or view. I updated the code to reflect this. It should work
> like your second
> flowchart<http://betterexplained.com/wp-content/uploads/rails/mvc-rails.png>(perhaps
> with the added concept of plugins, which can hook into anything).
>
> Symfony's routing is nice, many smaller frameworks take a similar approach
> (e.g. Sinatra <http://www.sinatrarb.com/> and ToroPHP<http://toroweb.org/>).
> However, I like the fact that Swiftlet requires no configuration. Just drop
> in your class and it works. The file structure and classes already do a
> good job describing themselves.
>
> Excellent feedback, thanks!
>
> Elbert
>
>
>
> On Sun, Feb 12, 2012 at 10:53 PM, Simon Schick <
> simonsimc...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>
>> Hi, Elbert
>>
>> I've looked through the code and found it quite tiny :) I like that.
>>
>> Until now I found some things that I'd like to discuss with you:
>>
>> In the class App you're doing all the stuff (routing, calling the
>> constructor aso) in the constructor. Would it not be better to have
>> separate functions for that? I like the way I learned from using Java: The
>> constructor is only for initializing the variables you need to execute the
>> other functions of this class.
>> Of course you can have a function that then calls all those small
>> functions and maybe directly return the output.
>>
>> I dislike the way you treat with the model .. currently it gets the
>> controller, the view and the app itself. If you ask me the model only needs
>> some configuration. I cannot come up with an idea where you'd need more
>> than a connection-string and some additional settings. The model has
>> several methods to gather the data that has been requested and gives it
>> back. If you'd ask me, there's no need for interaction with the app,
>> controller or view.
>>
>> I'd like to see an option for the router like the one I've seen in
>> symfony2 ... that was quite nice .. There you can define a regexp that
>> should match the called url, some variables that should be extracted from
>> that and some default-variables. It's quite hard to explain in the short
>> term, but take a look at their documentation:
>> http://symfony.com/doc/current/book/routing.html
>>
>> I'd like you to create a small workflow what your framework is doing in
>> which order. Your framework to me looks like this image:
>> http://imageshack.us/f/52/mvcoriginal.png/ But I'd rethink if this
>> structure would give you more flexibility:
>> http://betterexplained.com/wp-content/uploads/rails/mvc-rails.png
>>
>> I hope you got some input here you can work with. I'd like to hear your
>> feedback.
>>
>> Bye
>> Simon
>>
>>
>> 2012/2/12 Elbert F <i...@elbertf.com>
>>
>>> I'm looking for constructive feedback on Swiftlet, a tiny MVC framework
>>> that leverages the OO capabilities of PHP 5.3. It's intentionally
>>> featureless and should familiar to those experienced with MVC. Any
>>> comments
>>> on architecture, code and documentation quality are very welcome.
>>>
>>> Source code and documentation: http://swiftlet.org
>>>
>>
>>
>
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
On Mon, Feb 13, 2012 at 09:01:03AM +0100, Simon Schick wrote:
> Hi, Paul
>
> I personally pretty much like the idea of auto-loaders, but that's a
> personal point of view.
> If you have always develop with scripts having autoloaders you'll hate to
> write a *require_once* command at the beginning of all files. And what
> would a dependency-injection-container be without an autoloader ;)
> http://www.slideshare.net/fabpot/dependency-injection-with-php-53
I wrote a quite solid dependency-injector one time, and used it for a
while. But it introduced a certain opacity into my code that I didn't
like very much, and I ultimately abandoned it, even though it worked
quite well.
It's kinda like in C. If I want to use the strchr() function, I know I'd
better do an #include <string.h> to get that functionality. I can't just
assume all the library functions are all just there, waiting for me to
use them. While I've often complained about having to include those
header files to get to those functions, I still prefer having those
"include" calls obviously staring at me at the top of my files. I don't
have to *assume* it's there somewhere. I can see it right there, and it
comforts me.
Maybe all this is my "C" upbringing....
Paul
--
Paul M. Foster
http://noferblatz.com
http://quillandmouse.com
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
>From the fine manual [1]:
l (lowercase 'L')
A full textual representation of the day of the week
I can never remember this one, and I use it occasionally. What is the
mnemonic for "l"? How did this letter come to be chosen? Can anyone
more creative than me think of a way to associate the lower case
letter "l" with the full textual representation of the day of the
week?
Thanks!
[1] http://il2.php.net/manual/en/function.date.php
--
Dotan Cohen
http://gibberish.co.il
http://what-is-what.com
--- End Message ---
